Romney

[Jacob]

You may want to familiarize yourself with the more restrictive rules adopted for federal funding of abortions under Obama (via executive order). Even if you argue they are ineffective rules, it's really difficult to argue (honestly) that funding has expanded.

Executive Order 13535 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



As for the morning after pill- you are somewhat correct- it is prescription only for minors, not for everyone. That said, the FDA suggested it be over the counter for everyone and this administration (in a very rare move) overruled the FDA and said no. So the point stands- under a pro-choice president both issues on abortion have become more restrictive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us...fter-pill.html

I won't dwell on this further as I doubt it would do any good. Recinding the Mexico City policy was one of the first things Obama did as president. His healthcare act also would have the effect of the federal government paying for more abortions if it is ever implemented, if it hasn't already.

Now you claim that abortion is more restrictive under Obama because he decided to make the pill by Rx for young minors? Even though such pill was never available without a prescription for such minors? How is the new policy more restrictive if it was never available before? You have me stumped.

In 2006, the FDA approved over-the-counter access to Plan B for women 18 years of age and older.[129] In April 2009, the FDA followed the ruling of a New York Federal District Court and loosened the restrictions to allow Duramed Pharmaceuticals to provide Plan B without a prescription to 17-year-olds. However, as of June 2009, Duramed had not yet put a non-prescription Plan B product for 17-year-olds through FDA approval, a process that could take some time.[130]

[calicoug]

I won't dwell on this further as I doubt it would do any good. Recinding the Mexico City policy was one of the first things Obama did as president. His healthcare act also would have the effect of the federal government paying for more abortions if it is ever implemented, if it hasn't already.

Now you claim that abortion is more restrictive under Obama because he decided to make the pill by Rx for young minors? Even though such pill was never available without a prescription for such minors? How is the new policy more restrictive if it was never available before? You have me stumped.

What is your basis for arguing that the healthcare act will expand funding of abortions? It abides by the Hyde Amendment requirements.

You have a fair point on the pill in terms of my characterization. When I say "more restrictive," I mean compared to what the FDA recommended. Yes- I am aware that the pill has been restricted from minors in the past, but the FDA has been analyzing whether that should continue for some time and most everyone believed that the FDA's recommendation would be followed (it nearly always is) re access. The FDA said it felt the pill should always be over the counter. Obama's administration disagreed in a fairly unprecedented move. You can chalk that up as a nothing, but I don't see how it fits with your narrative.

[calicoug]

cali, you've made this and the republican primary thread interesting, and for that, I thank you.

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but I get so few complements around these parts that I will take it as one anyways!

[oxcoug]

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but I get so few complements around these parts that I will take it as one anyways!

Cali I second the compliment. It's good having you around here. Just keep your comments in the appropriate threads

[pellegrino]

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but I get so few complements around these parts that I will take it as one anyways!

ask around, I'm known for my sincerity.

[calicoug]

Cali I second the compliment. It's good having you around here. Just keep your comments in the appropriate threads

Haha! Thanks Ox. Let me say, that is the first finger wagging emoticon I've come across. I feel digitally reproved.

I'll do my best.

[YOhio]

Newt calls Mitt a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...H9XP_blog.html

[Moliere]

Newt calls Mitt a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...H9XP_blog.html

Sounds like Newt is desperate.

[Uncle Ted]

Newt calls Mitt a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...H9XP_blog.html

Given Newt vowed to never go negative he must be telling the truth.

[Flystripper]

I know he was speaking to different groups but I would think he could mix it up just a little.

I thought this bit was funny last night

[ame="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405156/january-04-2012/indecision-2012---iowa-caucus---mitt-romney-s-victory-speech---rick-santorum-s-coup"]Indecision 2012 - Iowa Caucus - Mitt Romney's Victory Speech & Rick Santorum's Coup - The Colbert Report - 2012-04-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central[/ame]

[Surfah]

I know he was speaking to different groups but I would think he could mix it up just a little.

I thought this bit was funny last night

Indecision 2012 - Iowa Caucus - Mitt Romney's Victory Speech & Rick Santorum's Coup - The Colbert Report - 2012-04-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

It's funny. But at the same time I have never understood the way people want a president to be relatable. I want a president to be presidential. Being able to yuck it up with some country bumpkins while eating a piece of pie at the counter of some diner is not important to me.

[Flystripper]

It's funny. But at the same time I have never understood the way people want a president to be relatable. I want a president to be presidential. Being able to yuck it up with some country bumpkins while eating a piece of pie at the counter of some diner is not important to me.

I agree. It isn't important to me if he can get along with Iowans. Hell I voted for Obama and I was very much certain that he was not very relatable to the common man. Part of why I voted for Obama was that he was presidential.

I am positive that you could cut up a few soundbites from Obama and make a similar funny bit as well. I just thought that the bit encapsulated why people haven't really warmed to Romney. He is perceived at being manufactured and not genuine.

[Indy Coug]

Romney surges to big lead in South Carolina, picking up over 15% in the last month or so.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im.../06/topsc3.pdf

[LA Ute]

Romney surges to big lead in South Carolina, picking up over 15% in the last month or so.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im.../06/topsc3.pdf

If he wins NH and South Carolina, he's the nominee (because that means he'll get Florida too).

[Pelado]

Romney surges to big lead in South Carolina, picking up over 15% in the last month or so.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im.../06/topsc3.pdf

He's polling 35-40% across pretty much all demographics. He maintains that, he wins the state and the nomination.